Ohio State University Fact Sheet

Community Development

700 Ackerman Road, Suite 235, Columbus, OH 43202-1578

Conflict Management In Community Organizations

L-701

Introduction

"Conflict in an ever-present process in human relations" (Loomis and
Loomis, 1965)

When turning-the-other-cheek fails, many people are at a loss in
dealing with conflict. The consensus strategy (a strategy based upon
agreement by the total group), employed by many organizations, leaves
community leaders ill-prepared to deal with those persons or
organizations who refuse to concede without a struggle.

Conflict situations appear with frequency in daily, public, and
private life. These conflicts may be on a small or large scale; they
may occur within and among groups, communities, or nations; and, they
may be triggered by ethnic, racial, religious, or economic
differences, or arise from differences in values, beliefs, and
attitudes regarding issues. Local communities are constantly faced
with issues such as funding for education, siting of waste facilities
and zoning that have the potential of leading to community conflict.
Workers in community organizations are (or should be) aware of issues
and value differences that may cause conflict within or among groups.
Unmanaged conflict is a threat to the survival of the group and, at
the least, tends to make the group less effective.

What causes conflict to emerge in communities and community groups?
How can one minimize, deal with, "manage", or resolve community and
group conflict? How is conflict used by groups as a strategy to bring
about desired changes? This paper will address these questions and
provide a means for individuals who work in voluntary development
groups to understand and deal with conflict within and among community
groups.

What is Conflict

The potential for conflict exists whenever and wherever people have
contact. As people are organized into groups to seek a common goal,
the probability of conflict greatly increases. Since only the most
serious conflicts make headlines, conflict has a negative connotation
for many people. All conflicts are not the same. We face conflicts on
all levels (Barker et al. 1987). We have disagreements with family,
friends, and
co-workers. "Conflicts are rarely resolved easily. Most conflicts are
managed as individuals work out differences...." (Barker et al. 1987).

Individuals may dislike certain people with whom they come into
frequent contact, but may tolerate their behavior on a day-to-day
basis until a situation arises where strong feelings are at issue.
Such situations almost inevitably turn up, sooner or later, within any
long term community project or program. Conflict can occur within
groups (intra-group conflict) or among groups (inter-group conflict).

Types of Conflict

Three basic types of conflict will be discussed here: task conflict,
interpersonal conflict, and procedural conflict. Group members may
disagree about facts or opinions from authorities. The interpretation
of evidence may be questioned. Disagreement about the substance of the
discussion is called "task conflict." Task conflict can be productive
by improving the quality of decisions and critical thinking processes.

Another potential area for conflict is the interpersonal relationships
within the organization. The term interpersonal conflict is used to
indicate the disagreement that most people call a "personality clash."
This "clash" may take the form of antagonistic remarks that relate to
the personal characteristics of a group member or disregard any
organizational goals to antagonize a particular group member. Conflict
of this type is expressed through more subtle nonverbal behaviors.
There may be icy stares or, at the other extreme, an avoidance of eye
contact. Interpersonal conflict may be inevitable and must be managed
for optimal group maintenance.

"Procedural conflict" exists when group members disagree about the
procedures to be followed in accomplishing the group goal. New
procedures may be formulated and a new agenda suggested. Even the
group goal may be modified. Procedural conflict, like task conflict,
may be productive (Barker et al. 1987).

According to Dahrendorf, at least four conditions are necessary if a
conflict situation can be said to exist: ( I ) There must be sets of
individuals exhibiting some level of organization. These could be
voluntary groups, religious groups, families, communities, nations, or
some other collections of individuals. (2) There must be some level of
interaction among group members. Without contact (and communication)
there can be no conflict. The contact may merely be propaganda about
another people, culture, or group; it need not be personal. (3) There
must be different levels of positions to be occupied by group
members - a hierarchy of relationships. All individuals cannot occupy
the same positions at the same time. (4) There must exist a scarcity
of needed or desired resources and a general dissatisfaction among
members about how these resources are being distributed. When there is
dissatisfaction, conflict can erupt (French 1969, Barker et al.,
1987).

Because small group communication acts as a system, no single variable
operates in isolation. A change in one variable may produce changes in
others. Because the system is continuously changing, a small group
could possibly experience more than one type of conflict
simultaneously (Knutson and Kowitz 1977).

Conflict and Competition

Although competition is often confused with conflict, there are
important differences between the two concepts. U.S. society is based
on a tradition of competition in jobs and leisure activities as well
as in stress competition. Most competition however, contains the seed
for potential conflict.

Conflict and competition have a common root because in each case
individuals or groups are usually striving toward incompatible goals.
The major difference exists in the form of interference that blocks
attainment of the goal.

In competition between groups working toward the same goal, the
competitors have "rules" (formal and informal guidelines) that limit
what they can do to each other in attempting to reach their goal.
Athletic events are examples of organized competition with extensive
rules setting forth boundaries of behavior.

Mack (1969) illustrates the difference between competition and
conflict by discussing a foot race: as long as the participants are
running without interfering with each other, competition exists. If
one runner "pokes his foot between the other fellow's legs," the
nature of the interaction has changed and conflict exists (so long as
the action is defined by both involved parties as interference and not
as an acceptable act under the rules).

Robinson and Clifford (1974) presents the following illustration to
clarify the distinction between competition and conflict:

If two children decide to set up a lemonade stand on a hot summer day,
for instance, competition will exist as long as each party attempts to
'corner the market' with socially acceptable behavior. 'Advertisement
campaigns' might be used to praise the superiority of each party's
product. 'Price wars' may be used to get the trade. When one party
feels threatened by the competition, he may resort to several other
tactics.

If one competitor goes to the other and suggests forming a
cooperative, eliminating high-priced advertising and agreeing on a
common price, consensus or cooperation may occur. Conflict occurs if
one party reacts by making innuendoes about the other's product,
perhaps by suggesting that his lemonade may be harmful, or if he
organizes a boycott against his opponent. If one party puts salt in
his opponent's sugar supply, destroys his opponent's ice, or turns
over his opponent's tables, violence occurs.

Competition is often used as technique to stimulate community groups
to action. In Extension, for example, the traditional means of working
with groups is on a cooperative basis. Involvement in conflict is
generally avoided, and Extension is careful not to "take sides" on
issues that could produce community group conflict. However,
competition is widely used by this educational agency to motivate
different individuals, groups, or communities to strive for the same
goal. Incentives, such as awards for beautification and other
community achievements, are examples of how competition can be used as
an effective motivating tool.

The Dimensions of Conflict

Robinson (1972) identifies the dimensions of conflict as: ( I )
threats or disputes over territory, whether the boundaries of the
territory are physical, social, or work boundaries; and (2) threats to
values, goals, and policies, as well as threats to behavior.

With regard to territory, threats to physical boundaries often involve
property disputes or controversy over water resources usage by
different groups.

Social territories are involved in establishing access to certain
resources. Such organizations as a county club, neo-nazis, or religious
orders set limits regarding who can join the group. The boundaries are
limited by dues structure, religious affiliation, or value structure.
However, fewer groups are legally able to limit social territories
based on gender, race, and social class.

Other examples of social boundaries involve the concepts of social
distance and norms. The Amish illustrate both concepts. They maintain
social distance by dressing differently than others in U.S. society as
well as by adhering to different rules of behavior. Because the Amish
are seen as having little direct effect on the larger society,
conflict is usually minimal. Bussing of school children to achieve
integration, however, is an issue involving social boundaries where
the potential for conflict is great. (In this case, it should be
pointed out, such social boundaries do exist, whether or not they are
considered "right" or justifiable.)

Threats to work boundaries may arise over job descriptions.
Incompatible or unclear lines of work responsibilities can lead to
conflict within organizations. Disputes over work territory may also
come about in situations where overlapping services and agencies
exist. Jurisdictional disputes over emergency medical service, school
districts, law enforcement (local police, county sheriffs, state
highway patrol), and political units (townships/cities/county) have
potential for conflict.

Groups tend to "protect" their territories and maintain their
boundaries by excluding others, rewarding and/or pushing group members
for the degree to which they adhere to group norms and defend the
territory in question, and by holding ethnocentric beliefs.

Groups may also "tend to believe that their way of thinking and doing
things is not only the best but the only right way. This belief that
the ways of one's own group are superior to all others, sociologists
call ethnocentrism" (Mack 1969). Mack contends that ethnocentrism is
an important source of and a contributing factor to the continuity of
conflict. In an urbanizing and industrializing world, groups may no
longer be as physically and socially isolated as they once were.

Conflict can involve threats to values. Such issues as the
environmental concerns, abortion, international trade agreements, and
the content of public education may threaten individuals and groups
with different value orientations.

Conflict may arise over goals. For example, county residents may
differ on how much of the county's budget should be allocated to
social services or road repairs. Most conflict is the result of
incompatibility of goals. However, there are also conflicts that stem
from differences about the means to attain goals. In one community,
for example, there was general agreement to establish a community
park. Some felt it should be paid for by existing revenue. Others
believed a new tax source should be secured. As a result, conflict
erupted.

Conflict may concern policies, such as adherence to Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

Conflict can also involve threats to behavior: "When values, policies
and goals are changed, when territories are redefined, one must
develop new behavior skills" (Robinson 1972). One recent behavioral
change example involves the emerging role of women in all facets of
our society.

The Effects of Conflict - Positive Aspects of Conflict

"Not all conflict is bad and not all cooperation is good," according
to Robinson (1972). People tend to view conflict as a negative force
operating against successful completion of group or community goals.
Conflict can be harmful to groups but may also serve some potentially
positive functions, depending upon the types of groups within and
among which it occurs. Not every type of conflict may benefit groups,
and conflict may not serve such functions for all groups (Coser and
Rosenberg, 1964). Conflict could be productive and could have positive
effects on groups. Three of these positive effects are: improving the
quality of decisions, stimulating involvement in the discussion, and
building group cohesion.

The integrative and disintegrative effects of conflict are examined in
the following paragraphs. Much of the material is summarized from
Robinson & Clifford (1974), Coser (1964) and Schaller (in Cox, 1974)
and Barker et al. (1987).

Defining and sharpening issues is one of the positive functions of
conflict among community groups. As sides form on an issue, arguments
and positions are clarified, and people can more easily distinguish
between two different points of view.

Conflict can improve the quality of decisions. Suppose your group is
discussing the issue of "student enrollment at your school." You and
another member disagree about the number of students attending your
college. What would you do Would you continue affirming your position
or would you walk to the telephone and call the registrar's office to
request the enrollment information contained in its records? Most
group members will look for more information to resolve task conflict.
Expression or conflicting news generates need for additional
information that is imperative to the decision-making process.

Conflict among groups may increase unity and cohesion within each
group as members unite in a common purpose. As Mack (1969) suggests,
conflict may define, maintain, and strengthen group boundaries,
contributing to the group's distinctiveness and increasing group
solidarity and cohesion. He adds, "Conflict promotes the formation of
groups.... Conflict also destroys groups, both in the sense of
realignments resulting from shifts in the distribution of power...and
in the ultimate sense of the extermination of an unsuccessful party to
conflict."

Internal social conflicts which concern goals, values or interests
that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the
relationship is founded tend to be positively functional for the
social structure. Such conflicts tend to make possible the
readjustment of norms and power relations within groups in accordance
with the felt needs of its individual members or sub-groups.

Internal conflicts in which the contending parties no longer share the
basic values upon which the legitimacy of the social system rests
threaten to disrupt the structure.

One of the most obvious "side effects" of task and procedural conflict
is excitement, although some of the feelings generated by conflict may
be negative, they are evidence of involvement. That is, a group member
may be angry but at least he or she is involved in the group
discussion. Thus, a good argument may be an effective antidote to
apathy. Individual involvement helps groups become more cohesive.

Conflict may lead to alliances with other groups, creating bonds
between loosely structured groups or bringing together different
individuals and groups in a community as they unite to fight a common
threat. Issues, such as types of books used in public schools, have
recently brought diverse individuals and groups together in various
communities.

Obviously, building group unity through interpersonal conflict is
difficult at times. Suppose, for example, that you become extremely
angry during an already heated discussion and call another group
member "a turkey." If individual and group trust exists and members do
not take remarks as personal rejection, the group can grow through the
confrontation. Group members learn that together they can confront
even personality clashes and as a group work to solve them. In the
words of Fisher ( 1980), "The group that fights together stays
together." The conflict should be managed, however, before it becomes
verbal assault and irreparable damage to individual egos occurs
(Barker et al. 1987).

Conflict often helps gain recognition for the groups) involved.
However, conflict may increase bitterness, alienation, and
divisiveness within or among groups and may have long-lasting effects
upon future cooperation among individuals and groups holding opposite
views. Coleman (1957) cites that "the residuum of past controversy",
or the cleavages that exist in a community as a result of past
conflicts, have an effect on present and future conflicts.

Conflict within a group can allow dissatisfied members to voice their
complaints. And, the group may restructure itself to deal with
internal dissension and dissatisfaction. However, conflict within a
group often leads to internal tension and disruption. Member's
attention may be diverted from the goals of the group to focus on the
conflict.

The structure of the group and its degree of tolerance of conflict
will affect the results of intra-group dissatisfaction and dissension.
Groups that have developed close bonds and whose members feel a great
involvement and sense of belonging tend to "play down" or suppress
conflict and hostile feelings which may be seen as a threat to the
unity of the group. Because of this tendency, feelings of hostility
within a group can accumulate and intensify over time. If conflict
eventually erupts it may be quite intense. This reaction may occur for
two reasons (Coser and Rosenberg 1964):

First, because the conflict does not merely aim at resolving the
immediate issue which led to its outbreak all accumulated grievances
which were denied expression previously are apt to emerge at this
occasion. Second, because the total personality involvement of the
group members makes for mobilization of all sentiments in the conduct
of the struggle...and therefore may threaten the very root of the
relationship. Cosner concludes that "the closer the group, the more
intense the conflict. "

In groups of individuals who participate only marginally, without
involving their total personality, conflict is less likely to be
disruptive or destructive. Such groups tend to experience fewer
conflicts which guard against the breakdown of consensus. Hostilities
do not tend to accumulate when tensions are resolved because "such a
conflict is likely to remain focused primarily on the condition which
led to its outbreak and not to revive blocked hostility; in this way
the conflict is limited to 'the facts of the case' " (Coser and
Rosenberg 1964). Coser (1964) concludes that the number of conflicts
experienced by a group is negatively related to the intensity of those
conflicts:

However, conflict can also disrupt normal channels of co-operation
among various segments of the community. Conflict may result in social
change, although "change often occurs without conflict, and conflict
does not always produce change" (Schaller, in Cox, 1974). Conflict may
produce harmful side-effects in addition to the intended change. When
teachers strike for higher wages, in a simplified example, students
miss several weeks of school work - no matter what the outcome of the
strike. A successful bid for wage increases or the death of the
teacher's union might be seen as a desirable change by various groups,
yet the negative side effect remains in either case.

Conflict may become violent and in extreme cases, lead to destruction
and bloodshed. Conflict does not necessarily imply or lead to
violence; "conflict becomes violence when the process turns to overt
hostility and involves destructive behavior" (Robinson and Clifford
1974). Conflict may also lead to violence "when a group is forced to
change because its rights and privileges have been threatened or
usurped" (Robinson 1972).

Clark (1968) states that two conditions help control community
conflict and keep it from turning violent: the degree to which people
are similar (for example, age, ethnic background, religion, length of
residence, organizational ties); and, the degree to which community
members have internalized community values, norms, and traditions,
resulting from participation in voluntary organizations and
involvement in community life.

In summarizing the effects of conflict, it can be said that they are
many and varied, as well as unpredictable. In general, conflict may:

be harmful to individuals or groups

have positive results

help define and sharpen community issues to
improve decisions

help gain recognition for a group

increase bitterness, alienation, and divisiveness

increase unity, cohesion, and solidarity within a group

strengthen group boundaries

aid in the formation of a new group

weaken or destroy a group

increase tension within or between groups

result in restructuring a group

lead to alliances with other groups

disrupt normal channels of cooperation

become violent

As we have seen, conflict has several positive aspects. However,
conflict also is potentially destructive in groups when it consumes
individual members' energies. However, conflict can interfere with
group process and create so much interpersonal hostility that group
members may become unwilling or unable to work with one another.

When, Where and Why is Conflict Likely to Occur?

The potential for conflict depends on the degree to which needed
resources must be shared, the amount of dependence among individuals
and groups, and differences over goals. The "process leading to
conflict is dynamic, because of the constantly changing nature of
goals" (Schmidt and Kochan 1972). Several specific factors have been
related to the occurrence of conflict. Type of event or issue, type of
local government, community type, and size will be discussed here.

Type of Event or Issue

Coleman (1957) discusses three components in the development of an
event or issue into community conflict:

(1) The event must touch upon an important aspect of the community
members' lives - education of their children, their means of livelihood,
religion, taxes, or something similar.

(2) The event must affect the lives of different community members
differently. A tax proposal, for example, affects property-owners one
way and nonproperty owners another.

(3) Finally, the event must be one which community members feel that
action can be taken - not one which leaves the community helpless.

Examples of conflict-producing events that fit these descriptions are
water quantity, political control of the community,
industrialization-related events, books in public school libraries,
and other school controversies, including religion
in schools and bussing. Coleman (1957) notes that one important
difference in the origin of community conflicts is the source: whether
they arise internally or are a consequence of external influence. He
states that "the prospect for the future is toward an increase in the
proportion of externally caused community controversies," since the
local community is "less often the focus of important social decisions
than it once was."

Coleman (1957) discusses a second difference among the events which
produce conflict, the "area of life they affect." The area of life
affected might be economic (location of a factory in town, taxes);
power or authority (zoning, jurisdictional disputes); cultural values
or beliefs (education, fluoridation, religion); and attitudes toward
particular persons or groups in the community (a predisposition to
react to issues on the basis of who is for or against them).

In discussing the "conditions for controversy," Coleman (1957) cites
differences in economic structure (i.e., industrial towns,
agricultural towns, etc.); changes in time ("short-term changes in the
social climate", such as the violent anti-Communism of the early
1950s); existing cleavages ("the residual of past controversy"); and
shifts in population and values (such as rural communities facing an
influx of new residents with different values, attitudes and
interests, which in turn affect schools, churches, political
structure, and taxes). In the future, it seems likely that
growth-related issues, such as land use planning, will increase the
potential for community conflict.

Schilit (1974) states that "as we move toward revenue sharing conflict
in communities will undoubtedly increase." Schilit suggests that as
decisions are made over revenue distribution at the local level, there
will be increased tension among groups for their "fair" share of
resources.

Coleman notes that when issues emerge as conflict they move from the
specific to the general. This broadening brings forth new issues as
well as new leaders.

Type of Local Government

Gilbert (in Clark 1968) studied power and decision-making in 166
American communities. On the relationship between local government
type and conflict, he found that communities with a significantly
lower level of conflict were those that had conciliatory values, which
facilitated the managing of conflict if it developed. The communities
also tended to be more homogeneous in population composition and
therefore had fewer internal differences, decreasing the potential for
conflict.

Community Type and Size

Regardless of economic base or homogeneity, all communities have the
potential for conflict. Level and intensity of conflict has no
limitations in any community.

On the relationship between population size and conflict, Gilbert
(Clark 1968) states:

Although population size is an important factor in conflict - very large
cities tend to be those with the most unmanageable conflicts - sheer
numbers are not the "cause." Large cities have disproportionately
large numbers of persons who are poor and uneducated.
These cities are also "over-diversified " economically in that they are
national or regional centers of finance, manufacturing,
communications, and the like. This differentiation verging on
fragmentation seems to contribute to conflict.

Industrialization and social change in communities affects the
potential for conflict. "Industrialization has made possible the rapid
interchange of persons and ideas not only within large societies but
between societies.... (This) increases, if only mathematically, the
possibility of interpersonal and intergroup friction, both within and
between societies" (Mack 1969). As we move toward a "mass society" the
possibilities for conflict are increased.

As Parker (1974) notes, "Change, actual or attempted, also results in
conflict within a group. There are tendencies to resist change and a
fear of the 'unknown' or what might result from changes." Some resist
change, of course, for more concrete reasons - because their evaluation
of the proposed change concluded that it is no improvement.

Understanding Conflict as a Strategy in Social Change

Conflict, as a strategy, is an attempt to coerce power after
understanding and reason fail. There are individuals and groups who
use conflict as a strategy to achieve their goals and change existing
conditions. They may instigate conflict to gain recognition and call
attention to their message. They usually want people higher in the
power structure to address their problem. In effectively approaching
in such situations, it is necessary to understand how conflict can be
used as a strategy in social change. One of the necessary "tools" in
conflict management is an awareness and understanding of the
strategies that agitators use in generating conflict (Robinson and
Clifford 1974).

Saul Alinsky was one of the major advocates of using conflict to
achieve group goals. His basic strategy was to organize community and
neighborhood groups to "establish a creative tension within the
establishment" (Robinson and Clifford 1974). Whether the tension was
creative or not, tension was frequently "created".

Those who utilize the conflict approach may use disruptive tactics to
call attention to their position. These tactics may range from
non-violent protests - boycotts and sit-ins - to violence.

Community development professionals appear to be divided on the use of
conflict. Steuart (1974), speaking to professionals in the community
development field, states: "Conflict itself...of some kind or degree
is a major determinant of change and far from moving to avoid or
immediately dissolve it, it may often be entirely appropriate even to
stimulate it." Many reject conflict because they feel that decisions
reached through community consensus and cooperation is the best method
to achieve social change. Conflict, it is argued, may stimulate
participation in the decision making process but provide only a
temporary stimulus and prevent the development of a permanent
foundation for participation. Many individuals who find conflict
distasteful may be repelled (Schaller, in Cox, 1974).

Schaller (in Cox, 1974) states that although benefits often accrue
when conflict is properly used, there are risks involved in using
conflict in community organizations. Nonviolent conflict may turn
violent, and conflict may produce unexpected results. Conflict may
also result in the identification of the wrong "enemy." As Robinson
and Clifford (1974) notes, "Alinsky demonstrated that his approach
would bring change. Sometimes his methods generated great unrest and
created much stress within communities. At other times, significant
advances and social change occurred."

While many community development workers may not promote the use of
conflict to bring about change, it is necessary to understand how it
may be used by groups in order to deal with conflict situations more
effectively when they arise.

Managing Conflict

This final section will discuss approaches to conflict resolution in
line with the aim of the discussion - to aid the reader in developing
effective skills for coping with conflict.

Robinson and Clifford (1974) advocates "managing conflict toward
constructive action since a conflict can seldom be completely
resolved." When conflict arises, we need to be able to manage it so
that it becomes a positive force, rather than a negative force
threatening to disrupt the group or community. As Parker (1974) notes:

Conflict not managed will bring about delays, disinterest, lack of
action and, in extreme cases, a complete breakdown of the group.
Unmanaged conflict may result in withdrawal of individuals and an
unwillingness on their part to participate in other
groups or assist with various group action programs.

Boulding (1962) discusses several methods of ending conflicts: (1)
avoidance; (2) conquest; and (3) procedural resolution of some kind,
including reconciliation and/or compromise and/or award. As stated
previously, avoidance of conflict often leads to intensified hostility
and may later cause greater problems for the group. Therefore, one of
the first steps in conflict management is to recognize that a conflict
situation exists. Don't ignore it and count on it disappearing by
itself. As Boulding (1962) notes:

"The biggest problem in developing the institutions of conflict
control is that of catching conflicts young. Conflict situations are
frequently allowed to develop to almost unmanageable proportions
before anything is done about them, by which time it is often too late
to resolve them by peaceable and procedural means."

Avoidance in a particular situation might conceivably be the best
answer, but this step should be made only after conflict is explicitly
recognized and alternative ways to manage it are examined.

Conquest or the elimination of all other points of view is an approach
seldom applicable to community development programs. It is mentioned
here only as a recognized approach.

Boulding's third method of ending conflict - procedural resolution by
reconciliation and/or compromise - is generally the method most
appropriate in community development programs. There are several means
to reach a compromise. Various practitioners and academies theorize as
to the best means available. In reality, the means for conflict
resolution by reconciliation is dependent on the situation. No one
type can apply to all situations.

There are always risks involved when dealing with hostilities or
conflict. Research indicates that accepting these risks will result,
when the conflict is managed (even in varying degrees), in stronger,
more cohesive groups. Ignoring or openly fighting the opposition can
greatly weaken group structure and group action (Parker 1974).

Compromise involves adjustments and modifications with regard to the
territories, values, goals, and/or policies of the involved parties.
For example, a possible strategy for reducing conflict over how to
reach an agreed-upon goal might be to redefine the situation in terms
of new means toward the acceptable goals - a new bond issue rather than
depleting existing funds. Territories may also be redefined and made
less exclusive in order to diminish conflict.

An outline of suggestions for use in managing conflict within and
among community groups is presented below:

Recognize and Acknowledge that Conflict Exists.

Analyze the Existing Situation.

Know exactly what the conflict is about. Does it involve values,
goals, means to goals, territory, or a combination of these?

Analyze behavior of involved parties: members of the groups(s)).

Determine if the conflict approach is being used by
the concerned party (as discussed in previous section).

Find out how other, similar conflicts have been resolved.

Facilitate Communication.

Enhance communication. Open the lines for free discussion and
involve all members.

Encourage accurate communication and feedback
because negotiation (discussed below) depends on good communication.

Listen and raise questions.

Allow free expression. Constructive disagreement should not be
suppressed.

Supply information and facts.

Maintain an objective level (not emotional).

Stay on issues, not people.

Provide the tact needed to "save face" for parties.

Negotiate.

"Techniques used in labor disputes offer potential in
community problem-solving." (Schilit 1974)

Some useful principles based on negotiations between labor and
management, and in business affairs may be applied in conflict
management in community groups. As Nierenberg (1968) states, "Whenever
people exchange ideas with the intention of changing relationships,
whenever they confer for agreement, they are negotiating." He adds,
"The satisfaction of needs is the goal common to all negotiations,"
and that "the satisfaction of needs is the goal common to all
negotiations.... Negotiation is a cooperative enterprise; common
interests must be sought; negotiation is a behavioral process, not a
game; in a good negotiation, everybody wins something."

The importance of discovering common interests, or "points of common
agreement," is stressed by Nierenberg (1968):

Always he on the alert to convert divergent interests into channels of
common desires. In exploring these channels, both parties to the
negotiation may be stimulated by the idea of sharing common goals.
These goals are reached by finding mutual interests and needs by
emphasizing the matters that can be agreed upon, and by not dwelling
on points of difference.

Make necessary Adjustments, Reinforce, Confirm.

Live with Conflict. All conflict cannot be resolved.

Sometimes, individuals or groups do not feel it is to their collective
interest to resolve a conflict. The price is too high. Resolution
involves compromise or capitulation. If a party is unwilling to
compromise or to capitulate, then the conflict is likely to continue.

Many social analysts believe that the middle class in Western
industrial nations has embraced an anti-conflict, anti-violence value
orientation. This has resulted in rule by consensus and conflict
avoidance. Some or most community leaders find conflict both
embarrassing and distasteful. This attitude is especially useful to
those who use a conflict strategy - that is, they exploit peace at any
price. But, it may not always be in communities' interest to
compromise or capitulate on these terms. Learning to live with
conflict may be a real community service. As close knit groups have
demonstrated for centuries, communities can live with conflict when
they collectively determine it is necessary.

Huizer, Gerrit, "The Utilization of Conflict in Community Development
and Peasant Organization: A Case from Chile," 1970.

Knutson, T.J. and A.C. Kowitz, "Efforts of Informational Type and
Level of Orientation on Consensus Achievement in Substantive and
Affective Small Group Conflict." Central States Speech Journal, 1977;
28, 5463, 1977.

Wise, H.F. and J.B. Williams, Editors, Main Street Ohio: Opportunities
for Bringing People back to Downtown. State of Ohio: Department of
Development (1981).

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension
are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard
to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin,
gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.